Evaluate : $limlimits_{x to infty} x cdot left(frac{1}{x!}right)^{1/x}$ [on hold]
I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$
If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?
limits stirling-numbers
put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$
If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?
limits stirling-numbers
put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
Nodisplaystyle
in titles please.
– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
1
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12
add a comment |
I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$
If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?
limits stirling-numbers
I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$
If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?
limits stirling-numbers
limits stirling-numbers
edited Dec 2 at 11:42
Did
246k23220454
246k23220454
asked Dec 2 at 11:27
Atiq Rahman
693
693
put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
Nodisplaystyle
in titles please.
– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
1
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12
add a comment |
2
Nodisplaystyle
in titles please.
– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
1
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12
2
2
No
displaystyle
in titles please.– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
No
displaystyle
in titles please.– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
1
1
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Taking the logarithm,
$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.
$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$
Hence $$e.$$
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
add a comment |
Let consider
$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$
and by "ratio-root" criterion
$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$
Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.
Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$
then
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$
by induction we can easily show that
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$
and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$
and then eventually
$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Taking the logarithm,
$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.
$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$
Hence $$e.$$
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
add a comment |
Taking the logarithm,
$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.
$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$
Hence $$e.$$
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
add a comment |
Taking the logarithm,
$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.
$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$
Hence $$e.$$
Taking the logarithm,
$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.
$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$
Hence $$e.$$
answered Dec 2 at 11:37
Yves Daoust
124k671221
124k671221
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
add a comment |
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:05
1
1
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
– Yves Daoust
Dec 2 at 12:47
3
3
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
– 伽罗瓦
Dec 2 at 12:56
add a comment |
Let consider
$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$
and by "ratio-root" criterion
$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$
Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.
Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$
then
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$
by induction we can easily show that
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$
and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$
and then eventually
$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$
add a comment |
Let consider
$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$
and by "ratio-root" criterion
$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$
Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.
Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$
then
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$
by induction we can easily show that
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$
and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$
and then eventually
$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$
add a comment |
Let consider
$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$
and by "ratio-root" criterion
$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$
Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.
Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$
then
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$
by induction we can easily show that
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$
and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$
and then eventually
$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$
Let consider
$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$
and by "ratio-root" criterion
$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$
Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.
Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$
then
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$
by induction we can easily show that
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$
and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$
$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$
and then eventually
$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$
edited Dec 2 at 12:31
answered Dec 2 at 11:59
gimusi
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
No
displaystyle
in titles please.– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43
@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06
1
What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12